theguru

To me that means he was loading up the charges with each stop but still, that is a lot.

It is only speculation on my part but I feel very safe in assuming he would have been fired a couple of times over where I worked.

I am sure all the workers that witnessed the event were essentially required to give a statement. I would love to read those statements.

Ouch on the donut thing. He is lucky he only got five days for that. Some places would fire you for that one.

Deuce posted this above but here it is again.

We disagree here.

I think something else we probably "learned" was LMPD did not discipline Detective Gillis for his uniform meaning that whatever Detective Gillis was wearing was in accordance with LMPD policy for directing traffic. In other words, the "I didn't know it was a police officer defense" took a big hit there.

I think what we did learn by omission was the LMPD powers that be don't appear to be interfering in this case. Detective Gillis violated policy and he was disciplined. Beyond that, this matter is for the "court" to decide.

Correct.

Here is the rest of that reply: Louisville chief of police Jacquelyn Gwinn-Villaroel: "Detective Gillis should have turned on his body-worn camera, but did not. His failure to do so is a violation of the LMPD policy on uniforms and equipment . . . He was performing a law-enforcement action as defined in our policy. . . . We understand the seriousness of the failure to capture this interaction, which is why our officer has received corrective action for this policy violation."

Padres take game two 7-3.

I thought it was a football game, then I snapped right back to reality.